Dollar General operator settles genetics and disability EEOC suit

The operator of Dollar General Stores will pay $1 million to settle a lawsuit in which it was charged by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with violating genetic and disability laws.

In a statement released Friday, the EEOC said Goodlettsville, Tennessee-based Dolgencorp LLC had required applicants at its Bessemer, Alabama, distribution center to pass a pre-employment medical exam during which they were required to disclose past and present medical conditions of family members such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

The EEOC also charged that the company used qualification criteria that screened out qualified individuals with disabilities.  For instance, it rescinded job offers to applicants whose blood pressure exceeded 160/100 or who had less than 20/50 vision in one eye, even when those impairments did not prevent the applicants from safely performing the job.

The company was charged with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.

The EEOC said in its statement that it had sued the company on behalf of a class of 498 applicants who were required to divulge family medical history during the hiring process and on behalf of another class of qualified applicants whose job offers were rescinded based on their impairments.

It said the company discontinued its practice of requiring pre-employment medical exams for these warehouse jobs after the lawsuit was filed.

Under the 27-month consent decree settling the suit, in addition to paying the $1 million, the company must review and revise its ADA and GINA policies and distribute them to all individuals involved in the hiring process should it resume requiring medical exams, among other terms, the EEOC said.

 Bradley Anderson, EEOC district director for Birmingham, Alabama, said in a statement, “Requiring individuals during the hiring process to answer invasive questions about medical conditions of their grandparents, parents or children violates GINA.

“An employer is prohibited from soliciting this information, regardless of whether the information is used to deny employment.”

In fiscal year 2022, GINA accounted for the lowest percentage of charges filed by the EEOC, at 0.3%. Disability accounted for 26.5% of all charges.

Eric B. Meyer, a partner with FisherBroyles LLP in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the case, said, “This is a wake-up call for all employers who have outdated policies about requesting information about family medical history.”

Dolgencorp attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.